{"id":2141,"date":"2026-11-11T01:25:19","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T01:25:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/inadmissible-34-1-f-membership-organization\/"},"modified":"2026-11-11T04:06:41","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T04:06:41","slug":"inadmissible-34-1-f-membership-organization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/inadmissible-34-1-f-membership-organization\/","title":{"rendered":"Found inadmissible under section 34(1)(f) for membership in an organization: what “member” means and your options"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Sundeep S. Grewal<\/a>, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation \u00b7 Reviewed November 10, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Sundeep S. Grewal is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2018, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Updated November 10, 2026: sections 33, 34 and 42.1 of the Act and the Federal Court’s 2025 decisions in Ali and Rajmanoharan checked that day.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The fix:<\/strong> challenge whether the organization fits section 34 and whether you were really a member. After a decision, judicial review; separately, an application to the Minister for relief.<\/p>\n

The deadline:<\/strong> the date in the fairness letter. After a decision, 15 days in Canada or 60 days outside (IRPA s.72<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Why a lawyer:<\/strong> “member” has been read very broadly, and the Federal Court is now questioning that. Which argument to make, and when, is a legal decision. Why a lawyer<\/a><\/p>\n

Book a consultation<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The lawyers who handle these files<\/p>\n

\"SundeepSundeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PrabhpreetPrabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PardeepPardeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n
\nAbout our lawyers<\/summary>\n
\n

Sundeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.<\/p>\n

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/a><\/strong> focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.<\/p>\n

Pardeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n

If IRCC or CBSA says you are inadmissible under section 34(1)(f) because you belonged to a political party, movement or group, the officer is saying two things: that there are reasonable grounds to believe the group engaged in espionage, subversion or terrorism, and that you were a member. Courts have read “member” broadly, so ordinary supporters and former party officials have been caught. In 2025, the Federal Court began requiring decision-makers to consider whether the person is actually a danger to Canada. You can challenge the finding in court, and you can also ask the Minister for relief.<\/p>\n

Lawgical Law Corporation<\/a>, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, responds to security inadmissibility allegations and takes these decisions to the Federal Court; this guide is by Sundeep S. Grewal.<\/p>\n

What does section 34(1)(f) say?<\/h2>\n

Under section 34(1)(f)<\/a>, a person is inadmissible for “being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage” in espionage, subversion of a government by force, subversion of a democratic government, institution or process, or terrorism. The person does not have to have done any of these acts personally.<\/p>\n

Why this needs a lawyer<\/h2>\n

One lawyer, one file, every step:<\/strong><\/p>\n